Have we achieved the supremacy of constitution?
The constitution is the law of the land. It defines the roles of individuals and institutions to make them functional. In the absence of rule of law, nations are governed by the subjective decisions of individuals. We have a checkered history of respecting the constitution. Up until 1973, the tradition of our leaders (read rulers) was to draft a completely new law for the land of pure. Even after 1973, the practice of holding the constitution in abeyance and making necessary changes on the order of only one had been routine.
On more than one occasion, individuals and institutions were caught trespassing the lines drawn for them by the constitution. The debate of ‘constitutional versus unconstitutional’ reached a new level when we invented the term “extra constitutional”. I am confident that many, like me, would still not know the actual meaning of this term. Every move by the government, opposition, legislative, judiciary, media, armed forces, etc, is investigated under the microscope of constitutional versus unconstitutional debate in talk shows on all channels, through the entire evening and till late at night every day. We could have at least achieved awareness of the common people of the law of our land through these talk shows had they been result oriented or at least not tilted with bias.
However, media ratings based on sensationalism appear to be the (not so) hidden objective of these “awareness” campaigns. The facebook era has seen a lot of changes taking place. The advent of social media has introduced new norms. Businesses are established and expanded using social media. Governments are ousted with campaigns on social media. A brain wave of a common person can become a worldwide phenomenon overnight if propagated rightly on the social media. But the question is: “In our country, where people are addicted to social media as much as anywhere else in the world, are the individuals or institutions performing their respective constitutional roles today?”
The judiciary, whose independence was to be secured as per the Objectives Resolution, took its first step towards independence only after the eighteenth amendment of the constitution in April, 2010
Being an optimist, I do see a lot of positives. A very vibrant and active opposition in the country is performing its constitutional role of keeping the government on its toes. I am deliberately bypassing the debate of whether the opposition should take the protests to the street, or bring the matters to the parliament as per the constitution to keep my focus on the point that I am trying to highlight. It is indeed a fact that the government, with enough numerical strength, realises that it cannot afford to be complacent in the presence of such determined opposition.
The judiciary, whose independence was to be secured as per the Objectives Resolution, took its first step towards independence only after the eighteenth amendment of the constitution in April, 2010. This amendment created the provision of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan to appoint the judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts and Federal Shariat Court. The amendment also chalks out clearly that the senior most judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts and the Federal Shariat Court will become chiefs of the respective courts. It may sound trivial, but this wasn’t the case till as late as 2010. The appointment of judges and the chiefs of the higher courts was a discretion of the president, raising serious questions on the independence and impartiality of these judges. The judiciary today is in a much better environment to perform its constitutional role of ensuring fair play in the country. Convicting a sitting prime minister and indicting another are prime examples of the fact that the judiciary is no more under any influence of the executive. Even a military dictator had to proclaim emergency ahead of some rulings by the judges of the Supreme Court which were allegedly against him, clearly reflecting his lack of influence. Incidentally, the same general today is facing treason charges on his decision of declaring the emergency.
Whatever conspiracy theories we hear today on the civil-military relations and the concept of a “soft coup”, the fact of the matter is that the civil and military leadership does appear to be on the same page on matters of common interest. We haven’t seen the military leadership going beyond their domain in the recent past. The last influence of the military leadership in the decision making of the federal government was the extension of General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, back in 2010. The current military leadership had to wait for the parliament’s approval for operation Zarb-e-Azb. Even if it is a mere eye wash (as claimed by some) it still is quite different from the situation during the Kargil War in 1999, where the then military leadership allegedly took the decision independently leaving the civil government facing all the international pressures. The recent establishment of special courts (read military courts), even if at the demand of the military leadership, had to go through the constitutional route. The twenty-first amendment of the constitution by the parliament ensured that this time the military was not involved in any “extra constitutional” act.
Parliament appears dedicated to its constitutional role of protecting the constitution for some time now
Parliament appears dedicated to its constitutional role of protecting the constitution for some time now. Whether it was to defend the constitutional indemnity of the president or to team up against the possible “raised finger of the umpire”, the parliament has been loud and clear in its resolve to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan” (quoted from the oath of the members of National Assembly and Senate).
One can argue that there is still a long way to go before we can claim that individuals and institutions are performing their respective constitutional roles to satisfaction, but I would like to see the glass half full rather than half empty. However, a serious concern at this point in time is to see if the people of Pakistan are fulfilling their constitutional role. Are we even aware of our constitutional role fully? We talk and hear a lot about our rights and the fact that we are far from getting them, but we do not take our responsibilities as seriously. It is the constitutional role of the citizens of Pakistan to pay taxes but tax evasion is the fashion in our country. We are weak questioning the performance of the government when less than one percent of the population pays income tax (reported by international surveys including the International Development Committee, UK in 2013). It is the constitutional role of Pakistanis to abide by law but breaking law gives us a sense of satisfaction. We will only stop our vehicle at a traffic signal if getting away with breaking it seems unlikely. It is our constitutional role to vote in elections, but we achieved a mere 55 percent turnout in the general elections of May 2013. 45 percent is too large a number, in modern times, of people preferring to stay away from the responsibility of voting. It is our constitutional role to be Pakistani, but we decide to be Shi’a, Sunni, Punjabi, Balochi, Muhajir, and what not. We divide ourselves and let tyranny rule us.
Let us accept that we, the citizens, have faltered more than the ruling elite. Our lack of commitment to our constitutional role allowed them to deviate from theirs. Let us decide to be responsible before expecting our leaders to show responsibility. Let us contribute and play our role in making the constitution, the law of the land, supreme in our country.
